Landlord Complaint Record: #23-4464

Residence Basement Apartment    |    Thomas Bishop    |    Great Mills    ,    Maryland 20634    Landlord Complaint 23-4464


Dispute or Remove Record
Page Options Page Options Page Options
  Print this page
  Email this page
CASE CLOSED CASE DROPPED Jul 27, 2014


CASE DROPPED: This complaint was not worked by the RPA� The case was terminated early and does not impact the landlords rating.
 



Case Number : 23-4464 Filing Date : Jul 21, 2014
Investigating Agent : Kept Private Case Disposition : Case Dropped
Complaint Level : Code Landlord Response : Case Closed

SUPPORTING DETAILS
Type Title / Link Posted By Date Uploaded Comments
upload Kept Private Renter Jul 22, 2014
Misleading information as to what type

LANDLORD / MGR : Thomas Bishop RENTER : Kept Private
Property Name : Residence Basement Apartment      
Address : 22353 Douglas Ct Address : Kept Private
City, State - Zip : Great Mills, Maryland - 20634. City, State - Zip : California, Maryland - 20619.
Phone : Kept Private Phone : Kept Private

COMPLAINT : Return Of Apartment Hold Fee / Misleading Apartment Ad Info Online
Fair Resolution according to renter :
  1. Paid $1200.00 For Apartment Hold Fee (7/7/14). Asking For $600.00 Back Due To Misleading Advertisement Of Apartment

RENTAL DETAILS
Address               :   
City, State - Zip   :   , - .

COMPLAINT DETAILS (from renter)

Currently on overseas deployment and wanted to set-up an apartment in Maryland prior to my return home in August, found a "Furnished Corporate Apartment" advertised on www.somd.com. The online advertisement was misleading at best, no indication that this corporate apartment was actually an basement apartment located within the renter's residence, I am not interested at all in renting a basement apartment of any kind anywhere and would not even had pursued this apartment had the advertisement specified as the actual type of apartment was for rent. Only asking for $600.00 of the intial $1200.00 apartment hold fee for any trouble this has caused the Bishop family, I think that is a more than reasonable request due to the misleading online apartment advertisement, but I m starting to feel like I am getting the run around on the return of the apartment hold fee. I have attached a screenshot of the "Furnished Corporate Apartment" still currently being advertised on www.somd.com.

LANDLORD / TENANT RESPONSES (0)
From Date IP Address Response
Landlord Jul 22, 2014 72.9.15.144 Explain why you can't accept / Offer Alternative Resolution.

INVESTIGATING AGENT - REMARKS (22)
Agent Date Response
SYSTEM Jul 28, 2014 OFFICIAL COPY OF COMPLAINT: An official copy of the complaint has been requested by the tenant and mailed out by the nearest mailing center. The tenant should receive the copy of complaint within 3 days.
SYSTEM Jul 27, 2014 CASE CLOSED BY TENANT: The complaint has been closed by the tenant and will no longer be handled by the Rental Protection Agency. Case has been dropped.
SYSTEM Jul 27, 2014 The tenant has closed this case. The RPA will no longer be accepting responses to this complaint.
SYSTEM Jul 25, 2014 Delivery Estimate: The complaint notice sent to Thomas Bishop Residence Basement Apartment Great Mills, Maryland should have arrived or will arrive within 24 hours.
SYSTEM Jul 25, 2014 No Further Updates: No further updates have been provided. This case will be closing following an additional 3 day extension for updates. Pending case updates.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 New file uploaded by Tenant.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 PENDING LANDLORD RESPONSE: The landlord or manager have been provided with the following response deadline: July 28, 2014 This deadline provides a reasonable time frame of 3 days for delivery of written notice and 3 days to respond to case # 23-4464 as outlined in the mailed notice. THIS CASE IS PENDING RESPONSE FROM LANDLORD OR MANAGER.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 MAIL CONFIRMATION: The complaint notice has been processed and is currently in route for 23-4464.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 COMPLAINT NOTICE PRINTED: The complaint notice has been successfully transferred to the nearest mailing center and is pending mailing confirmation. For Landlord
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 AUTOMATIC EMAIL TO LANDLORD: The system has automatically emailed the landlord a digital complaint notice. Initial Email to Landlord has been sent.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 COMPLAINT NOTICE PRINTED: The complaint notice has been successfully transferred to the nearest mailing center and is pending mailing confirmation. For Renter
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 EMAIL TO TENANT: The system has sent an email to the tenant. The email included a copy of the complaint as filed by the tenant.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 Complaint Accepted by RPA and is pending further processing.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 FINAL 3 DAY RESPONSE PERIOD: The RPA is providing a 3 day response period for additional updates by either party. The tenant may at their discretion offer an alternative resolution. Pending further updates.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 Email Sent to Tenant: The RPA has sent an email to the tenant showing managements explanation as to why they can't accept the tenants resolution or provide an alternative resolution.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 LANDLORD UNABLE: According to the response made by Tom Bishop / Denise Bishop, management is not able to accept the tenant proposed resolution, nor are they able to offer an alternative. This case will be documented as Refused to Mediate.
SYSTEM Jul 22, 2014 LANDLORD EXPLANATION: The Landlord Tom Bishop / Denise Bishop cannot accept the tenant's resolution nor provide an alternate resolution as per the statement provided: The reason the prospective tenant Shane Griffith gave us for not moving in was because after thinking about it he didnt think it was a good idea afterall since we knew his soon to be ex-wife and he felt it was not in his best interest to move in on those grounds. We did not mislead him and discussed in depth via his telephone call to us exactly where the apartment was located as well as the fact that he knew who we were. Before he paid the deposit he knew we had several other interested tenants and that we were choosing him over them based on the fact that we knew him. We lost our other prospective tenants in the days that followed before he decided to change his mind. We made every attempt to call the other prospective tenants to offer them the apartment. All of them had signed leases elsewhere. We did NOT EVER state that we would not return any or a portion of his deposit. We told him we would need to wait and see if all of our efforts are fruitless or not to rent to someone else. Our lawyer and the State Attorney General's office informed us it is satisfactory to try and rent to someone else and wait to see if we are any financial damages by his personal choice to rent the apartment or not. We have also offered with no ill feelings for him to still move in as planned at the same time assuring him of his privacy.
SYSTEM Jul 21, 2014 The RPA server has sent an initial email complaint notice to Tom Bishop / Denise Bishop Residence Basement Apartment concerning the Complaint filed by the tenant: Return Of Apartment Hold Fee / Misleading Apartment Ad Info Online. The email address was provided by the tenant at the time of filing.
SYSTEM Jul 21, 2014 An email confirmation was sent to the tenant at 07-21-2014 23:44:03. The email included a confirmation of the complaint filing, case number, and pin.
SYSTEM Jul 21, 2014 CONFIRMATION OF COMPLAINT: A complaint about Return Of Apartment Hold Fee / Misleading Apartment Ad Info Online has been filed pertaining to 23-4464 or Tom Bishop / Denise Bishop located in Great Mills, Maryland 20634. Case is pending mailing confirmation.
SYSTEM Jul 21, 2014 Complaint 23-4464 has been filed and is in queue for further processing. Pending further updates and confirmation of mailing.